rich guy bashes tax cut

I think even a flat tax system would have to be somewhat progressive, particularly at the bottom end of the scale:

How would a flat tax of say 10% affect say a working single-mom with two kids who has an income that is at or below the poverty level? How would that compare to the taxes that she (could be a he) pay now? Compare that to someone who makes the same but doesn't have kids, the 10% seems to me to be less of a burden to her. You can say she should have never had the kids, they aren't our problem, she had them, they are her problem, but answers like that are bullsh*t and show how little of grasp you have on how society works. I agree that she (again, could be a he) should do everything that she can and not depend on welfare, but we still have to make sure a flat system doesn't screw the poor, particularly with kids. There are a lot of hardworking poor folks that aren't going away...

I do like the idea, but I'm not sure that it could ever be quite that simple... IMO.

 

Answer

Most "flat" tax proposals I've seen have a large exemption, like $20,000 or more before you even start paying the tax. For example, the Dick Armey proposal would exempt the first $35,400 in income for a family of 4. Struggling family problem solved.

 

Re: Answer

Fair enough! That answers my question!

 

Actually, I don't think it's a bullshit answer at all. It's called "personal responsibility." And nowhere is that required more than when a person decides to breed and bring another life into the world. I think it's certainly acceptable to expect her to not only be responsible for her own survival but also for that of her child. I have friends who would like to have another child but since they can't afford it, they don't. They've correctly taken responsibility for their actions and have chosen not to act in an irresponsible manner. Popping out another baby and then expecting someone else to pay for it, now that I'll agree is bullshit. I also don't see anything in the US Constitution or my state Constitution that says "Subsidize the breeding of every irresponsible person in the country." The absolute best example of this I ever saw was on the Montell William's Show (hey, I was travelling for work and in a hotel room and it was that or soap operas). He had a man and a woman on the show. The woman was the stereotypical Welfare Queen. She had six kids, from three different guys, none of which paid a dime in child support. She and her kids were a collection of parasites, sponging off the rest of us. She was ranting and raving about how she was entitled to this and entitled to that and how no one had any right to tell her if she could have kids or not. The guy, on the other hand, had one thing to say: "My wife and I would like to have a second child, but we can't afford it so we don't." It's really that simple.

And on the pragmatic side, there are plenty of charitable organizations who will help out someone who is hit a rough spot in life. The difference is, unlike welfare, they won't continue to support deadbeats for years and years, or generation upon generation, as is the case with welfare. That's not a hand-up, it's a free ride on someone else's back. Those of us who are pulling the wagon have every right to demand that the loafers riding in it get off their asses and help pull it.

As far as sales taxes hurting the poor more, not in my state. Necessities like food and clothing are exempt from sales tax. So the basic necessities of life are not taxed, so sales tax has no effect on the poor. Now once the "poor" make enough to buy a new PlayStation2, the tax kicks in. But if you can afford that PS2, you're not that poor after all.

We're all born dirt-poor. From there, you're entitled to die and nothing more. Anything in between is for you to make on your own. We've all got the same opportunities in life, if we choose to chase them. Bill Gates is a college dropout who became the richest man in America by working his ass off. Or if you don't like Bill Gates/Microsoft, pick the self-made millionaire of your choice; we've got quite a few.

 

The Tax Cut Method (remember the Trickle Down Theory?) of spurring growth didn't work under Reagan or the first Bush. We just built up huge deficits, the largest to date. Of course Dubbya is on track to out do daddy again. The deficit is on track to reach a new record by 2006 under the latest tax cut plan. And that's if Rumsfield and the boys don't talk him into going into Iran.

 

Uh, how does doubling the tax revenues to the Federal Government constitute "not working" under Reagan? Tax revenue went from $450B to over $900B during Reagan's term in office. A review of government revenues during following JFK's tax cut shows similar increases.

The reason the deficit balloned is due to one thing and one thing only: in government, INCOME and OUTGO are two totally independent events. Congress spent $1.26 for every new dollar that Reagan's tax cuts brought in. Increasing deficits and national debt are the only possible consequence of such spending practices. If you get a $100 a week raise and then spend an extra $125 a week as a result, you too will dig yourself a giant financial hole.

But I agree that additional deficits are a bad thing. How about we try this novel approach: CUT SPENDING. But the last time this was tried, the Democrats screamed bloody murder over a 1% reduction in spending. One lousy percent. I'm pretty sure that most of us could reduce our personal spending by 1% and not even notice. Not at Government House.

 

I still contend it's a "bullshit" answer. You are correct, there are a lot of Welfare Queens out there who have done nothing but make their situation worse. The difference is most of them don't pay taxes anyhow, ya gotta work to pay taxes. But over here you have single mom with 2 kids holding down two jobs and making less in a month than I made this week. Somehow I think giving her a tax break (NOT A HAND OUT) is not only fair but the piss-ant amount of difference to the total fed budget might feed her kids for a week, so it just makes sense.

I agree with you 110% on the personal responsiblity, but the reason that I call it a bullshit answer is that not everyone that is a single parent or low income earner got their because of something they did or didn't do. To say otherwise is short-sighted and frankly bullshit. I know, I lived it as a child. My dad split on my mom when I was 8 and sis was 6, as many union workers under Reaganomics, he hardly had work and when he did he drank the returns. Mom worked her ass off and managed to keep my sister and I clothed and fed and we didn't lose the house, but she cried herself to sleep many a nights. The ONLY handouts she received was free school lunches and a token amount of food stamps. No check, not even enough food stamps to feed us for a week. The end result was that we overall had a decent life, but she earned every penny of it. You could argue my dad was to blame and didn't take his personal responsibity and you'd be right, but it'd been no different if he was killed, etc, for us, thanks to the economy in that region at the time, he didn't have any money anyhow. He straighted his shit out and there was a happy ending (my kid has 3 sets of grandparents to spoil him!). I know for a fact that there are tons of single parents out there dealing with similiar shit, they are taking their responsibity but it may not be enough. Give the working poor a break...

 

A canard. Bush Sr. was roundly castigated for, and failed his re-election bid partially because of his failed promise to preserve the Reagan tax cuts.

 

I have a question. How should the success/failure of any initiative be measured? Who gets the credit? Who gets the blame? I've read people say that the president is not responsible, but then I read President Bush's comments the he inherited the current situation from President Clinton. So which is it?

 

That's an easy one. If it's a success, I get the credit. If it's a failure, you get the blame.

 

How did Reagan's lowering of the marginal tax rates eliminate work for union workers? The only union workers that took it on the chin under Reagan were the air traffic controllers and they got exactly what they deserved for pulling an illegal strike.

If you're referring to the closing of the steel mills, then you can't blame that on Reagan. Several of the biggest mills closed months before Reagan took office. More importantly, the decision to close these mills was made years beforehand. Capital investment at those facilities had stopped almost a decade before, clearly indicating that the company planned on closing them. When the current equipment had been depreciated fully, the mill got closed. So if you're going to blame the steel mill closings on a President, you'd have to blame Carter, Ford, or Nixon, not Reagan.

Now as for the wealth redistribution programs, personally I'd like to see which article of the US Constitution authorizes the government to take from one citizen and give it to another (hint: the "promote the general welfare" clause is in the preamble, which has no force of law, not to mention it's one hell of a stretch to say that taking from one to give to another is promoting the general welfare). I don't see any myself, and I've read it quite a few times. But that aside, welfare and such piss away almost 80% of their budgets in overhead expenses. Most of the money goes to pay government employees. The private sector (charities, churches, food banks, etc.) are infinitely more efficient in helping people in need.

But the problem with private charities is that they won't continue to support parasitic sponges year after year. Welfare, on the other hand, has no such problems with supporting deadbeats for generation upon generation. Here in Pittsburgh, they recently wanted to tear down a housing project. One of the tenants was up in arms, claiming "we've got third-generation families living here." Three generations of sponges, suckling off the public teet. After all, why work to better yourself when you can live off the public dole forever, just like your parents and grandparents before them.

More importantly, I fail to see how lowering tax rates doesn't also benefit the working poor. If the government takes less money from them in taxes, how is that not a benefit?

 

Ok, you are correct. What I said was "as many union workers under Reaganomics, he hardly had work and when he did he drank the returns" What I recall from growing up in that region (Butler, PA) during that era (the 80s) was that all the unemployed union workers took their few dollars, sat around the bars drinking Iron City or Budweiser and blaming Reagan (who just happened to be the Republican in the Oval Office at the time) for all their woes. What Reagan did to their "union brothern" traffic controllers (justified or not, I'm not debating it) just added fuel to the fire... My statement was actual a pile of sarcasism grouped together, but sarcasism (and spelling!) don't come across too well on the keyboard. I was there, I remember who they blamed and what they did about it (make the Busch family richer ) but like you I really know what was up... Remember "Dorothy can work!" ? That was a little silly and sad all wrapped up in one...

Back up the Bus... What I was referring to was a comment I made in an earlier post where a flat tax for almost everyone was fine, but that I felt that the people working but at a "poverty" level should still be given a break below the flat tax. I never indicated that we should give hand outs or welfare, etc, just let them keep a little more of the peanuts they earn. The "bullshit" answer comment was in reference to the assumption that everyone at the poverty level was there because they f@cked up and it was their fault. Part two of that statement is that by not helping those with kids in that situation, we are actually creating more problems down the road that would likely cause society more burden then letting the working poor pay a lower tax rate than the rest of the country. For the record, I am in favor of a flat tax, but it should still be progressive and the extreme bottom of the scale, IMO.

 

Being from the Pittsburgh area, I know all too well the union mush head mindset that blamed the mill closings on Reagan. The reality, however, was that you just can't pay a guy $40/hour to push a broom around a mill because the work just isn't worth that amount of money. The Steelworkers Union priced themselves right out of a job. And being true to their Democrat roots, the union heads found a Republican to blame it on. These same jokers also sat aound the bar for two years, drinking their unemployment money, thinking that the mills would reopen, even as the buildings got bulldozed. But like I said, the biggest closings took place a few months before Reagan took office (post-election buy pre-inaguration as I recall).

As for the flat tax thing, every proposal I've seen exempts a very large initial chunk of income from any taxation. I believe $36k for a family of four was tossed about.

But since this would eliminate a MAJOR source of power for politicians (handing out tax loopholes), it's not too likely to happen.

Now as for helping the poor, it's not the government's job. There's nothing in the Constitution about redistributing the wealth so they shouldn't do it. Add to that the fact that the government could screw up a wet dream and is the most inefficient organization known to mankind and it all boils down to the fact that the job could be done better by private charities. And if the rest of us didn't have to pay the tax burden for the government leviathan, we'd all have a hell of a lot more money to do things with, charity included. Americans are some of the most generous people on earth, but charity is hard to do when the feds are taking a bigger hunk from your paycheck than your mortgage payment.

OK, time to blow this pop stand and go...

 

mtk, seems we're on the same page! My ol' man wasn't a steel worker, but as a construction electrical, he went as the steel mills went. Armco in Butler survived the 80's, Pullman Standard didn't.... But that's a different story!

Have a Iron City for me! (Just kidding! uke: I never could drink that!)